and he s using the word profit in a very narrow definition, making money off of it, but to host the g-7 summit with hundreds of world leaders, the security fortifications, the upkeep, the renovations, that is all the renovations they have to do to bring them in and the renovations they have to do once they leave. that stuff he would benefit from. wouldn t he benefit from that financially? here is what i think you know, now that he s not doing this doral trip, the what i think made this an emoluments clause violation is this. we know in the past that jimmy carter took his business and put it in a blind trust. he created a wall between being the president and his business, but once donald trump, even if he didn t take any profit from this the g-7, once he was involved as the president putting that summit, that conference at one of his hotels, he blurred the line. he scaled the wall between being president and being a hotel manager, and so when he did
spokesperson, sarah sanders, go out before the election and say there were isis members in the caravans coming across the southwest border. donald trump is definitely directing federal business be done on his property. that s an kmoult emoluments clause violation. a constitutional violation, not a stature one. when house minority leader kevin mccarthy says earlier this week, i don t see any difference from going to the marriott or the trump hotel well, he might get into the hotel business. give him time. kevin mccarthy is either being a cold-stone sycophant corrupt person on behalf of the president or he s ignorant. he doesn t control the house, but democrats do. democrats on this and everything else need to record for history that this is a constitutional violation. if they fail to do so, then none of this means anything. congress got the mueller report, they did nothing. congress now has a steady drip of investigative reports about corruption, seeming corruption,
from any foreign national, any foreign kingdom or country. the domestic emoluments clause is that the president cannot receive anything in addition to his salary, from an individual state or from the federal government. so even though this case arises in a foreign country, it maybe a violation of the domestic emoluments clause, because you have the federal government writing the check. the federal government s writing the check, to the airport, for the gas, or whatever, then you may have a foreign emoluments clause violation to the extent that that benefit trickles over to the trump hotel. but everything hingees on how we define this old-fashioned word emoluments. is it a very broad definition? meaning that any benefit that somehow finds its way to the president from any foreign country or individual state is a violation? or if you re the president, you re arguing that it must be more narrow, narrowly interpreted, because it has to be a payment for his actual services. as if he worked
policy and we have to know all the bobby traps and loopholes he wants to put in the tax code literally to benefit his family, his corporation, and his friends. we know they re calling for abolition of the estate tax which i m sure ivanka and barren will be delight to hear about. frank, doesn t that only matter if there is somebody willing to do something about it? one of the things that s happened with donald trump running for president is we ve learned what are laws and what are just norms. since he doesn t follow a lot of the norms, a lot of people assumed. what if there was some emoluments clause violation? is there faith that people in congress would even do anything about it?
his corporation, and his friends. we know they re calling for abolition of the estate tax which i m sure ivanka and barren will be delight to hear about. frank, doesn t that only matter if there is somebody willing to do something about it? one of the things that s happened with donald trump running for president is we ve learned what are laws and what are just norms. since he doesn t follow a lot of the norms, a lot of people assum assumed. what if there was some emoluments clause violation? is there faith that people in congress would even do anything about it? i think they will when they see the people showing up at the town halls saying we want you to look into this. the more people who show up tomorrow, the stronger the pressure is going to be on all these congressmen. the democrats support this, the