Trying to Find a Shortcut out of Bizarro World

[Nous]

One can easily imagine all manner of realistic scenarios in which Trump's removal from office would be seriously contemplated by both the American public and Congress. Joshua Matz and Lawrence Tribe ably argue that any receipt of monies or other consideration through his business interests from persons with connections to foreign governments puts Trump in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. They show that, contrary to the contention of Trump's corporate lawyers, the Foreign Emoluments Clause cannot possibly be interpreted as excluding the profits from “fair market value” transactions. Accordingly, Trump is already in violation of this Constitutional provision.

Eliot Cohen, former counsel to Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, speculates that Trump might be removed from office by operation of the 25th Amendment. It isn't far-fetched, especially in light of the fact that Section 4 gives Congress the power to choose any body other than the majority of the principle officers of the executive departments as the body that, along with the Vice President, transmits the declaration of the President's unfitness, the instrument that removes the President from office. Congress can designate itself or any committee as that body. And, of course, a Vice President on the sinking ship of a wildly unpopular administration would seem to have nothing to lose by joining in such a declaration, especially when most Americans think the President truly is a lunatic.

In any case, regardless of the method of Trump's removal, Pence would become President. I don't know much about Pence, but I know he is a lawyer, and the mere fact that he got into law school, graduated law school, and passed the bar means that he is more intelligent when he is unconscious than Trump is in his most acute state. I would also assume that Pence is more electable for a second term than Trump is.

So would you prefer Pence in the White House rather than Trump at this point? Would Pence be at least a point or marker on the road out of Bizarro World?

(This question is for people outside of the US also, since the whole world is affected by the idiocy that happens in the US.)

 

[suncowiam]

No. If I'm stuck in here then so are you!

 

[Kemosloby]

We didn't elect Pence. Trumps is not on a salary or paid for an office or employment of a foreign government. So it shows the twisted logic of Trumps opposition to even bring this up.

e·mol·u·ment
əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
formal
plural noun: emoluments

1. a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

 

[BSM1]

One can easily imagine all manner of realistic scenarios in which Trump's removal from office would be seriously contemplated by both the American public and Congress. Joshua Matz and Lawrence Tribe ably argue that any receipt of monies or other consideration through his business interests from persons with connections to foreign governments puts Trump in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. They show that, contrary to the contention of Trump's corporate lawyers, the Foreign Emoluments Clause cannot possibly be interpreted as excluding the profits from “fair market value” transactions. Accordingly, Trump is already in violation of this Constitutional provision.

Eliot Cohen, former counsel to Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, speculates that Trump might be removed from office by operation of the 25th Amendment. It isn't far-fetched, especially in light of the fact that Section 4 gives Congress the power to choose any body other than the majority of the principle officers of the executive departments as the body that, along with the Vice President, transmits the declaration of the President's unfitness, the instrument that removes the President from office. Congress can designate itself or any committee as that body. And, of course, a Vice President on the sinking ship of a wildly unpopular administration would seem to have nothing to lose by joining in such a declaration, especially when most Americans think the President truly is a lunatic.

In any case, regardless of the method of Trump's removal, Pence would become President. I don't know much about Pence, but I know he is a lawyer, and the mere fact that he got into law school, graduated law school, and passed the bar means that he is more intelligent when he is unconscious than Trump is in his most acute state. I would also assume that Pence is more electable for a second term than Trump is.

So would you prefer Pence in the White House rather than Trump at this point? Would Pence be at least a point or marker on the road out of Bizarro World?

(This question is for people outside of the US also, since the whole world is affected by the idiocy that happens in the US.)

Why in the world would you think that a Republican Congress would even consider ousting a sitting Republican President? Not only is this just wishful thinking on your part, but it would more than likely be political suicide for any Republican Congressman who would endorse such a nonsensical idea. Trump ran as a Republican and was elected by Republicans; might as well get use to it.

 

[columbus]

Why in the world would you think that a Republican Congress would even consider ousting a sitting Republican President?

Because they were being far more honest about Trump before he rode the rigged system into the nomination?
Many of Trump's most dangerous political enemies are the Republicans formerly known as GOPe. Just because they say nice things at the moment doesn't mean they're being honest. They are politicians. Maybe they just don't want to go down with the ship.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Because they were being far more honest about Trump before he rode the rigged system into the nomination?
Many of Trump's most dangerous political enemies are the Republicans formerly known as GOPe. Just because they say nice things at the moment doesn't mean they're being honest. They are politicians. Maybe they just don't want to go down with the ship.
Tom

Let's start with "rigged system". What rigged system?
You say Republicans don't want to go down with the ship. Maybe you should take a look at the 2016 election map and tell me that if President Trump does all he says he will do, do you really think any intelligent politician is going to go against him in the States that he won? Oh, I know the liberal/progressives are dreaming about wining Congressional seats and State legislatures and governors, but most of them are in an alternative universe, and hoping they don't lose more Senate seats.

 

[Nous]

No. If I'm stuck in here then so are you!

I'm only glad to have your company in Bizarro World!

 

[Nous]

We didn't elect Pence.

There are several Presidents that we got but which the majority didn't elect.

Trumps is not on a salary or paid for an office or employment of a foreign government. So it shows the twisted logic of Trumps opposition to even bring this up.

e·mol·u·ment
əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
formal
plural noun: emoluments

1. a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Try this:

As OLC has concluded, and as the Oxford English Dictionary teaches, the word “emolument” is defined as “profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment: reward, remuneration, salary.”[42] The word also has an older meaning of “advantage, benefit, comfort.”[43] Around the time of Ratification, “emolument” was often used as a catch-all for many species of improper remuneration; thus, when James Madison criticized Alexander Hamilton, he warned that Hamilton sought to conduct government through “the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force.”[44]

The Emoluments Clause is thus doubly broad. First it picks out words that, in the 1790s, were understood to encompass any conferral of a benefit or advantage, whether through money, objects, titles, offices, or economically valuable waivers or relaxations of otherwise applicable requirements. And then, over and above the breadth of its categories, it instructs that the Clause reaches any such transaction “of any kind whatever.”

While the phrasing may strike us as peculiar, everything about the Emoluments Clause militates in favor of giving the broadest possible construction to the payments it encompasses. For that reason, the Clause unquestionably reaches any situation in which a federal officeholder receives money, items of value, or services from a foreign state.

Just as plainly, the Emoluments Clause covers any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state in which the foreign state offers a “sweetheart deal” or any other benefit inconsistent with a purely fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction not specially tailored to benefit the holder of an Office under the United States.

Finally, while there is not yet a firm consensus on this point, the best reading of the Clause covers even ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder. To start, the text supports this conclusion; since emoluments are properly defined as including “profit” from any employment, as well as “salary,” it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify. That view is bolstered by the Clause’s reference to “offices,” which indicates that the Framers sought to prohibit even reasonable money-for-services arrangements between officeholders and foreign states, which would result in profit to the officeholder. Indeed, it would be absurd to imagine that an otherwise forbidden emolument in the form of a foreign government’s payment to the American President could be cured if the President were to give that foreign government its money’s worth (or more) in services advancing that government’s interests, which might well be contrary to our own. And it must not be forgotten that every recognized purpose of the Emoluments Clause would be fully implicated by a federal officeholder whose (entirely legitimate) business interests depend in any respect on profits earned from foreign states. Just imagine if the President, while in office, owned a company that made tens of millions of dollars, all as a result of profitable transactions with the Chinese government. Could it be said in that scenario that there is little risk of improper foreign influence? Certainly the Framers, who had seen the King co-opt Parliament through the strategic deployment of financial incentives, would have abhorred a president with loyalties divided by business dealings with foreign kings.​

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Pence is a homophobic, transphobic, anti-science creationist. But he's still better than Trump, because he actually knows how to be diplomatic, doesn't let his ego drive the car, and has a damn clue about how politics works.

 

[Kemosloby]

There are several Presidents that we got but which the majority didn't elect.

Try this:

As OLC has concluded, and as the Oxford English Dictionary teaches, the word “emolument” is defined as “profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment: reward, remuneration, salary.”[42] The word also has an older meaning of “advantage, benefit, comfort.”[43] Around the time of Ratification, “emolument” was often used as a catch-all for many species of improper remuneration; thus, when James Madison criticized Alexander Hamilton, he warned that Hamilton sought to conduct government through “the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force.”[44]

The Emoluments Clause is thus doubly broad. First it picks out words that, in the 1790s, were understood to encompass any conferral of a benefit or advantage, whether through money, objects, titles, offices, or economically valuable waivers or relaxations of otherwise applicable requirements. And then, over and above the breadth of its categories, it instructs that the Clause reaches any such transaction “of any kind whatever.”

While the phrasing may strike us as peculiar, everything about the Emoluments Clause militates in favor of giving the broadest possible construction to the payments it encompasses. For that reason, the Clause unquestionably reaches any situation in which a federal officeholder receives money, items of value, or services from a foreign state.

Just as plainly, the Emoluments Clause covers any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state in which the foreign state offers a “sweetheart deal” or any other benefit inconsistent with a purely fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction not specially tailored to benefit the holder of an Office under the United States.

Finally, while there is not yet a firm consensus on this point, the best reading of the Clause covers even ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder. To start, the text supports this conclusion; since emoluments are properly defined as including “profit” from any employment, as well as “salary,” it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify. That view is bolstered by the Clause’s reference to “offices,” which indicates that the Framers sought to prohibit even reasonable money-for-services arrangements between officeholders and foreign states, which would result in profit to the officeholder. Indeed, it would be absurd to imagine that an otherwise forbidden emolument in the form of a foreign government’s payment to the American President could be cured if the President were to give that foreign government its money’s worth (or more) in services advancing that government’s interests, which might well be contrary to our own. And it must not be forgotten that every recognized purpose of the Emoluments Clause would be fully implicated by a federal officeholder whose (entirely legitimate) business interests depend in any respect on profits earned from foreign states. Just imagine if the President, while in office, owned a company that made tens of millions of dollars, all as a result of profitable transactions with the Chinese government. Could it be said in that scenario that there is little risk of improper foreign influence? Certainly the Framers, who had seen the King co-opt Parliament through the strategic deployment of financial incentives, would have abhorred a president with loyalties divided by business dealings with foreign kings.​

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

That's a lot of writing which doesn't add up to profit from running a business.

 

[Nous]

Why in the world would you think that a Republican Congress would even consider ousting a sitting Republican President?

I don't think Trump has many friends among the Republicans in Congress. Hundreds of notable Republicans around the country campaigned against him and begged voters to not vote for him. And as Cohen noted, Trump doesn't create allies; he only makes enemies.

But it is interesting that you believe the decisions about removing him from office will be made on partisan grounds.

In any case, in two years we might no longer carry the burden of a Republican majority in Congress.

 

[Nous]

Pence is a homophobic, transphobic, anti-science creationist. But he's still better than Trump, because he actually knows how to be diplomatic, doesn't let his ego drive the car, and has a damn clue about how politics works.

That basically sums up my idea about it. Pence at least wouldn't be engaging in Trump's childish behavior of bashing judges who have issued or will be issuing opinions on his executive orders. Things can only get worse with Trump--this, after all, is his "honeymoon" with Americans.

 

[Nous]

That's a lot of writing which doesn't add up to profit from running a business.

What is that supposed to mean?

Did you figure out that you posted an erroneously narrow definition of "emolument"?

 

[suncowiam]

Pence is a homophobic, transphobic, anti-science creationist. But he's still better than Trump, because he actually knows how to be diplomatic, doesn't let his ego drive the car, and has a damn clue about how politics works.

The problem with diplomacy is that Pence can stab you in the back while Trumps tries to stab you in the front.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The problem with diplomacy is that Pence can stab you in the back while Trumps tries to stab you in the front.

Yep, and I'm certainly more concerned about him being intelligent enough to get his bigotry seated into law instead of floundering like Trump with his travel ban. However much less concerned about Pence alienating us from every ally we have, creating more enemies and putting lives at risk from not leven bothering with intelligence.

 

[BSM1]

I don't think Trump has many friends among the Republicans in Congress. Hundreds of notable Republicans around the country campaigned against him and begged voters to not vote for him. And as Cohen noted, Trump doesn't create allies; he only makes enemies.

But it is interesting that you believe the decisions about removing him from office will be made on partisan grounds.

In any case, in two years we might no longer carry the burden of a Republican majority in Congress.

Still beside the point. Trump was elected by the Republican voters (and others) and those Republicans that make their living by being politicians are taking notice.

 

[Acim]

We need to look at who is third in command. Cause if Trump is ever taken out, all this vile hatred reserved for Trump will be aimed squarely at Pence. It'll be (literally) the same rhetoric/schtick and constant calls for him to be removed from office. So, who's third in command? I don't think that person has felt the wrath of the Left yet, and isn't it about time we started doing that.... in Bizarro world?

 

[Kemosloby]

What is that supposed to mean?

Did you figure out that you posted an erroneously narrow definition of "emolument"?

I suppose since the dollar is now the global reserve currency by your broad definition, anyone who holds a dollar is in violation of the emolument clause. Lets take a look at the Clintons and see how broadly they interpreted it, and also Obama, before we decide. Lets start with Chinagate, when Clinton gave top secret US weapons to China in exchange for ____?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It'll be (literally) the same rhetoric/schtick and constant calls for him to be removed from office.

Evidence? I just posted about all the reasons I, as someone on the left, think Pence would be better for the job than Trump.

 

[suncowiam]

Yep, and I'm certainly more concerned about him being intelligent enough to get his bigotry seated into law instead of floundering like Trump with his travel ban. However much less concerned about Pence alienating us from every ally we have, creating more enemies and putting lives at risk from not leven bothering with intelligence.

Makes sense. I would agree with that.