"First, it's worth noting a critical concession in the memo. While some commentators have taken the extreme view that the emoluments clause doesn't apply to the president -- a claim that doesn't withstand scrutiny -- Trump's lawyers did not rely on that position. In fact, they squarely rejected it, stating that the president's 'obligations under the Constitution' include 'the obligations created by the ... Foreign Emoluments Clause.'
"From this promising start, however, the memo goes badly awry. It bases its defense of Trump exclusively 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.'
"There are two specific problems with this defense: First, it utterly fails to account for the many other ways in which Trump will still violate the foreign emoluments clause; and second, it is wrong on its merits." [The Atlantic, 1/18/17]
Law Professor Steven Schooner: Trump Plan Doesn't Address "The Concern Of The Drafters Of The Constitution." George Washington University Law School professor Steven Schooner told Media Matters reporter Joe Strupp in an interview that "so long as foreign states, lobbyists and special interest groups have reason to believe that spending money at Trump properties curries favor with the president, then the concern of the drafters of the Constitution and the underlying justification for the government's conflict of interest prohibitions remains":
"The only thing that we've heard is that he is planning on turning over his business operations to his sons. He has not addressed ownership, which is the key conflict. Whether or not the hotel makes a profit based on a foreign guest is not the issue. The concern is whether foreign governments, lobbyists, and special interest groups are willing to lavishly spend their money and pay premium prices for events, food, drink and possibly stays at Trump hotels because the president appreciates their patronage. So long as foreign states, lobbyists and special interest groups have reason to believe that spending money at Trump properties curries favor with the president, then the concern of the drafters of the Constitution and the underlying justification for the government's conflict of interest prohibitions remains." [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]
Law Professor Jay Wexler: Trump Plan "Doesn't Solve The Problem At All." Boston University School of Law professor Jay Wexler told Media Matters' Strupp that "the question is whether [Trump] might be influenced in his actions as president by the fact that some foreign country might do something that would economically benefit him." He added that "if he stands to financially benefit in any way from the arrangement, then he is always at risk that foreign governments take some action to favor his business in order to influence his policy decisions to benefit a foreign nation. That is the whole point of the Emoluments Clause. This doesn't solve the problem at all." [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]
Emoluments Clause Expert Zephyr Teachout: "Every President Has Gone Out Of His Way To Not Even Come Close To The Emoluments Clause. This Is A Pretty Direct Violation." Zephyr Teachout, an associate law professor at Fordham University and author of Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United, told Media Matters that Trump's plan is "a pretty direct violation" of the clause:
The Media "Might Just Be Our Last, Best Hope To Stop The President From Becoming The World's Most Popular Business Partner" And Running "Roughshod Over The Constitution""The basic issue is he still owns the company, the emoluments clause says you can't take payments from foreign countries. An emolument is a payment. ... The reason is pretty clear because the framers were pretty worried about foreign governments using gifts and payments to influence foreign policy. ...Every president has gone out of his way to not even come close to the emoluments clause, this is a pretty direct violation." [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]
Huff Post.: The Press "Might Just Be Our Last, Best Hope To Stop The President From Becoming The World's Most Popular Business Partner." In an article previewing Trump's Emoluments Clause violations and other instances of conflicts of interest, Huffington Post media writer Jason Linkins and White House reporter Christina Wilkie described how media scrutiny contributed to the cancellation of two deals where Trump could have profited from a foreign government. But they warned, "But if reporters are the last, best hope, we've got to do a much better job than we've been doing these past few weeks. Case in point: Given the opportunity to probe the president-elect and his attorney on foreign business dealings at this week's press conference, only one reporter opted to do so, weakly inquiring, 'What is your response to your critics who say not only you, but also your Cabinet is filled with conflicts of interest?'":
"Despite what you've just read, all is not lost. There is one more avenue of influence that could be exerted over the incoming president and his future foreign business partners: Public pressure from public exposure. That's right, folks, the crooked media with its fake news and its rude questions might just be our last, best hope to stop the president from becoming the world's most popular business partner.
"Indeed, two such projects have already fallen victim to the hot glare of investigative reporting: The first was a Trump-branded resort on the Black Sea in Batumi, Georgia. The second was a Trump-branded office tower in Buenos Aires. Both of these developments were briefly revived in the weeks after the election -- but have since been canceled.
"In all likelihood, the media attention on strained U.S. relations with the countries where these deals were situated likely played a role in killing them.
"But if reporters are the last, best hope, we've got to do a much better job than we've been doing these past few weeks. Case in point: Given the opportunity to probe the president-elect and his attorney on foreign business dealings at this week's press conference, only one reporter opted to do so, weakly inquiring, 'What is your response to your critics who say not only you, but also your Cabinet is filled with conflicts of interest?'
"If that's the best the media can do, then Trump and his family are poised to make billions of dollars by running roughshod over the Constitution." [The Huffington Post, 1/15/17]
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
