"She added: 'There is the conflict of interest concern, an ethical concern even though the Congress has exempted the president from the conflict. But he will be in a position where he can use government office to enrich The Trump Organization and enrich himself.'
"She also cited the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars federal officeholders from profiting from foreign governments or their agents: 'The problem is that The Trump Organization and Donald Trump will receive and he will receive money from foreign governments, that is what's prohibited. He says he will donate the profits, the Emoluments Clause is concerned with payments, not just profits. Who gets to define what the profits are?" [Media Matters, 1/11/17; Washington University School of Law, accessed 1/18/17]
Eisen To NY Times: Trump's Plan Is Not "Sufficient To Cure His Emoluments Problem." Addressing the claim at Trump's press conference that foreign government profits his hotel receives will be donated to the Department of Treasury, Eisen told The New York Times, "It is not my view, nor the view of any of the bipartisan experts that have spoken out today, that the announced Trump plan is sufficient to cure his emoluments problem":
"It is not my view, nor the view of any of the bipartisan experts that have spoken out today, that the announced Trump plan is sufficient to cure his emoluments problem. Even if it were possible to peal out the profits only from the hotel, the emoluments clause is not written to say that all emoluments are permitted except for Trump hotel profits." [The New York Times, 1/12/17]
Painter To NY Times: "These Emoluments, These Payments From Foreign Governments, Have To Be Out Of The Trump Business Empire On Jan. 20 Or He Will Be In Violation Of The Law." Painter indicated that Trump's plan as a whole will violate the Emoluments Clause unless it is modified before Trump takes office:
"The plan we heard today does not comply with the law. He is not in violation of the law as of today, but he has nine days to fix it. And these emoluments, these payments from foreign governments, have to be out of the Trump business empire on Jan. 20 or he will be in violation of the law. It is not an obscure provision of the Constitution. It was intended to preserve the independence of the United States from foreign powers meddling in our system." [The New York Times, 1/12/17]
Tribe To LawNewz: "The Whole Phony Setup Would Make President Trump A Living, Walking, Talking, Tweeting Violation Of The Emoluments Clause." Tribe told LawNewz that Trump's plan would violate the Emoluments Clause because foreign governments would still have myriad ways to enrich the Trump Organization, and Trump is retaining an ownership interest in the organization:
"Prof. Tribe called the Trump 'scheme' simply a 'deceptive web of mumbo-jumbo rather than a serious way to comply with his constitutional oath.'
"The Prof. also addressed the Emoluments Clause criticisms directly, saying that it is important to 'stress that the 'ethics officer' [Trump] proposes to install wouldn't have true independence, and anyway it's not only that particular transactions would be unethical; it's that the whole phony setup would make President Trump a living, walking, talking, tweeting violation of the Emoluments Clause each time banks or funds linked to foreign sovereigns are allowed to take steps that Trump will necessarily know are enriching the total value of his family's mega-business.'" [LawNewz, 1/11/17]
Attorney Joshua Matz: Trump's Plan Means He "Will Remain In Violation Of The Emoluments Clause." Matz, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and current appellate litigator, explained in The Guardian that Trump's "continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization" and that fact that Trump "generally will know exactly what assets the company holds and how they will be helped or hindered by his actions" means that foreign powers "will act with awareness (or at least suspicion) that benefits conferred on Trump enterprises -- if not in the form of deals, then in a thousand other forms -- may elicit favor or wrath from President Trump." According to Matz, "[f]or these and other reasons, Trump will remain in violation of the emoluments clause even if he adheres to this plan":
"But Trump's new plan falls woefully short. His continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization will keep his financial welfare tied to the business. And nobody seriously believes that the affairs of the company will truly become mysterious to Trump.
"To the contrary, he generally will know exactly what assets the company holds and how they will be helped or hindered by his actions. Foreign powers, too, will act with awareness (or at least suspicion) that benefits conferred on Trump enterprises -- if not in the form of deals, then in a thousand other forms -- may elicit favor or wrath from President Trump.
"Notably, the Trump Organization simply cannot turn over to the US treasury all profit from interactions with foreign powers. For example, consider the significant benefit conferred by a foreign state that decides to host a series of widely advertised functions at a local Trump hotel, greatly increasing the property's cultural cachet and thus markedly boosting its profit margins and those of other properties branded 'Trump.'
"For these and other reasons, Trump will remain in violation of the emoluments clause even if he adheres to this plan. While his lawyer denied that the clause applies to 'fair value exchanges' -- presumably as distinguished from sweetheart deals -- that conclusion defies common sense." [The Guardian, 1/12/17]
Eisen, Painter, Tribe, And Matz: Post-Press Conference Memo Issued By Trump's Lawyers Does Not Rectify His Violation Of The Emoluments Clause. In an Atlantic article, Eisen, Painter, Tribe, and Matz analyze the three-page memo released by Trump's law firm after the press conference, finding that its argument is based on the "proposition that the president may engage in arms-length, fair-market-value exchanges with foreign powers -- on the theory that the phrase 'emolument' covers only 'payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office,'... which they say is 'wrong on its merits' and doesn't account for other ways he will violate the clause:
"Several hours later, the law firm Morgan Lewis issued a memo entitled 'Conflicts of Interest and the President.' In three short pages, this memo outlined why Trump's plan purportedly complies with the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
