Taxpayer money pays for Trump business legal fees

[billvon 2,442]

Over a million in tax dollars going to Trump's businesses. So we need a tax cut for millionaires.

Is anyone surprised any more?
==========
Taxpayers pay legal bill to protect Trump business profits
Nick Penzenstadler, USA TODAY Published 3:06 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2017

Taxpayers are footing the legal bill for at least 10 Justice Department lawyers and paralegals to work on lawsuits related to President Trump's private businesses.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department will say how much it is costing taxpayers, but federal payroll records show the salaries of the government lawyers assigned to the cases range from about $133,000 to $185,000.
=========

[yoink 321]

I'd be interested to hear if any Trump supporters are OK with this type of thing?

Where is the line where even the most ardent Trump fan says that he's abusing the position?

[normiss 633]

I would expect they would support even Obama and Clinton doing the same.

[JoeWeber 2,332]

yoink

I'd be interested to hear if any Trump supporters are OK with this type of thing?

Where is the line where even the most ardent Trump fan says that he's abusing the position?

I know, let's ask him. RushMC, is it close yet?

[BIGUN 1,084]

When its a USA Today New's McNugget; there's usually more to it.

Quote

The lawsuits have nothing to do with defending Trump’s policy actions, which is what the Justice Department would generally do on behalf of the president. For Trump, the taxpayer-funded lawyers are trying to make the case that it isn’t unconstitutional for a sitting president to earn money from a private company that profits from foreign governments.

Article 1 of the Constitution reads (emphasis added):
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.”
Government lawyers alongside Trump’s private attorneys are attempting to argue that the emoluments clause does not apply to a foreign government buying things from a president’s country. Ethics groups, as well as competing businesses, say the payments pose an unconstitutional conflict of interest.

The fact that public lawyers are defending a president’s private businesses is unprecedented and may cause even more issues down the road. “We’ve never before had a president who was branded and it’s impossible to divorce from that brand,” said Stuart Gerson, who served as chief of the Justice Department’s civil division for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “It’s blurring the lines because it’s so unusual. I can’t think of a precedent where another civil division lawyer has been called on to defend the president under these circumstances.”

The lawsuits hinge on the Constitutional provision that makes sure federal officials do not profit from foreign powers that might conflict with their duties to the United States. For instance, the way China keeps making it easier for Ivanka Trump to operate in their countries, and now Trump says that China is actually not to blame for the trade issues the U.S. has with the country. He’s appeasing China and walking back on campaign promises to potentially help his and his daughter’s companies.
“In the emoluments cases, you’ve got the DOJ defending him on constitutional principles, but their end goal is to let him keep his money and they’re defending his personal interests,” said William Weinstein, a New York attorney suing Trump in one of the foreign payments cases.

Last month, DOJ deputy assistant attorney general Brett Shumate argued in a Manhattan courtroom that foreigners staying in a Trump hotel aren’t providing “foreign gifts” because there’s no proof that they receive a benefit from the U.S. Government for doing so.
“President Obama, we know he received royalties from the sale of books during his presidency,” the government lawyer argued in court. “Did he violate the Emoluments Clause because he likely would have received royalties from the sale of the books to foreign government representatives?”

And Attorney General Jeff Sessions stands firmly by the defense. “It’s the responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Office of the Presidency in carrying out its activities against charges that are not deemed meritorious,” Sessions said. “We believe that this is defensible and we’ve taken the position that our top lawyers’ believe is justified.”

The lawyers in the DOJ are trying to focus on the “gifts” part of the clause, ignoring the fact that Trump is already promising foreign countries leniency that he would directly benefit from. If they thought they had a winning argument, Trump wouldn’t need his own lawyers and 10 public lawyers to try and prove it.

SOURCE: https://www.truthexam.com/2017/11/american-taxpayers-are-paying-the-legal-bills-to-protect-trumps-business-profits/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[TriGirl 278]

Here's my point:

BIGUN

When its a USA Today New's McNugget; there's usually more to it.

Quote

The fact that public lawyers are defending a president’s private businesses is unprecedented and may cause even more issues down the road. “We’ve never before had a president who was branded and it’s impossible to divorce from that brand,” said Stuart Gerson, who served as chief of the Justice Department’s civil division for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “It’s blurring the lines because it’s so unusual. I can’t think of a precedent where another civil division lawyer has been called on to defend the president under these circumstances.”

The Constitution needs to be amended to include more qualifications (or laws enacted to codify long-standing traditions -- put in writing the "unwritten rules"). Since it's "impossible" to separate the person from the brand, this candidate should not have been considered eligible to run (blind trust rules and all).

I would like to see as well some kind of experience qualifiers put into the rules.

No, I'm not saying I'm qualified to spell out what those limits should be, so let's not get into a flame war over this. However, the issue certainly rates consideration.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[BIGUN 1,084]

I agree that qualifiers need to be codified. I don't think it requires a constitutional amendment. I don't see why it couldn't be added to the US Codes. There's currently rules in place for "gifts" of value from the lowest to the highest levels.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[TriGirl 278]

RE amendment: since the original qualifications are in the Constitution, it may take an amendment. However, if legislation (US Code) could be enacted sufficiently, then I'd be all for it.

RE gifts: The problem is there are too many legal loopholes that the current administration is using to its advantage. Definitions of gifts, wording of the emoluments clause, etc. Again, codifying what has been "common practice" would be helpful. Just because someone "shouldn't" do something doesn't mean they can't. This administration is the clear illustration of that.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DanG 1]

I don't think it is wise to let one branch of the government impose restrictions on who may serve in another branch of the government. The branches are supposed to be checks on each other. If we let Congress put additional restrictions on who may serve as president, we'd be giving them undue influence over the Executive branch. In the same way, the president shouldn't get to decide who may serve in Congress.

- Dan G

[TriGirl 278]

OTOH, if the rules applied to all candidates running for an elected post at the federal level (and applied to all three branches, even though the Supreme Court is appointed and confirmed), it would be equitable. I only mention an amendment because each branch has qualifiers already spelled out in their respective articles in the Constitution. Therefore, I'm advocating adjusting those qualifiers -- or passing laws if an amendment is too high of a goal.

We should also consider revisiting the purpose and applicability of the electoral college. It's original intent was to be able to cast an educated vote if the masses "didn't understand" or messed up. We certainly do not live in a one voter/one vote system at this point. If we want to argue that the people are ill-educated, ill-informed and incapable of choosing someone qualified, then the EC should do its job per its charter. Otherwise, the EC is an outdated system that no longer serves its intended purpose.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DanG 1]

I still see a problem with making eligibility requirements outside of the Constitution itself, but if it applied to all three branches, then it would be more palatable.

I totally agree with you on the electoral college.

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,357]

TriGirl

Here's my point:

***
When its a USA Today New's McNugget; there's usually more to it.

Quote

The fact that public lawyers are defending a president’s private businesses is unprecedented and may cause even more issues down the road. “We’ve never before had a president who was branded and it’s impossible to divorce from that brand,” said Stuart Gerson, who served as chief of the Justice Department’s civil division for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “It’s blurring the lines because it’s so unusual. I can’t think of a precedent where another civil division lawyer has been called on to defend the president under these circumstances.”

The Constitution needs to be amended to include more qualifications (or laws enacted to codify long-standing traditions -- put in writing the "unwritten rules"). Since it's "impossible" to separate the person from the brand, this candidate should not have been considered eligible to run (blind trust rules and all).

I would like to see as well some kind of experience qualifiers put into the rules.

No, I'm not saying I'm qualified to spell out what those limits should be, so let's not get into a flame war over this. However, the issue certainly rates consideration.

I'm not sure anything needs to be re-written or codified or anything like that. The Emoluments Clause is pretty clear. Short version: No conflicts of interest.

It doesn't need to be any more clear. If a person has conflicts, especially with foreign governments who are not friendly to the US, they can't serve as President. It doesn't matter if they won't divest those interests, or if they can't. Trump seems to be a combination of "can't" and "won't", but in any case, is in pretty clear violation of the clause.

He never should have been sworn in, and IMO, should have been impeached on Jan 21st.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

We should also consider revisiting the purpose and applicability of the electoral college. It's original intent was to be able to cast an educated vote if the masses "didn't understand" or messed up. We certainly do not live in a one voter/one vote system at this point. If we want to argue that the people are ill-educated, ill-informed and incapable of choosing someone qualified, then the EC should do its job per its charter. Otherwise, the EC is an outdated system that no longer serves its intended purpose.

An additional rationale for the EC at the time it was established was that it provided a mechanism for implementing the 3/5 compromise. If slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census and congressional representation, how could that be reflected in presidential votes without actually allowing slaves to vote? The EC was the answer, as each state got a number of EC votes that corresponded (more or less) to their "population". Of course, that reason for the EC is long rendered obsolete, as the EC itself should be.

What would be great would be a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. Senator Boxer proposed one after the last election, but it had no chance to pass in Congress, and it had written in a seven year deadline for ratification. The seven year deadline has become normal in proposed amendments, but in reality it is a sort of "poison pill" that allows politicians to act as posers, proposing amendments they know have no chance of being ratified. What we need is a proposed amendment without a time limit, as was the case with the 27th amendment (passed congress in 1789, ratified by the 38th state in 1992). Over time, states that felt disadvantaged by the EC would hopefully ratify the amendment (Democratic-leaning states when a Republican is elected president despite losing the popular vote, and at other times Republican-leaning states when the reverse happens), until eventually enough states ratify it to kill the EC. Also with a "live" proposal on the table, politicians could campaign on the promise to ratify the amendment. I would certainly seriously consider voting for a candidate that would help get the amendment ratified. However, to start the process it would have to pass Congress in order to be sent to the States, and the current congress would certainly never do that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ryoder 1,402]

TriGirl

We should also consider revisiting the purpose and applicability of the electoral college. It's original intent was to be able to cast an educated vote if the masses "didn't understand" or messed up. We certainly do not live in a one voter/one vote system at this point. If we want to argue that the people are ill-educated, ill-informed and incapable of choosing someone qualified, then the EC should do its job per its charter. Otherwise, the EC is an outdated system that no longer serves its intended purpose.

That is a popular myth, but it is wrong.
To recap my earlier posting here (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4853776#4853776):

1. At the time the constitution was created, slavery was a very divisive topic between the North & South states. Due to the demographics of the voters (free, white, adult males), if the South joined the new union, they would be outvoted at every turn. For this reason, they were showing reluctance to ratify it. A carrot was needed to get the South to join.

So this was added: Slaves would count 3/5 of a free person for the purpose of number of House reps, *and* number of electoral votes. Since some the the Southern states had even more slaves than freemen, this made a huge difference. So large was this difference that the South dominated the House enough to prevent any chance of abolition. 8 of the first 9 POTUS were from the South.

2. The constitution derived much influence for the office of POTUS and the House from pre-existing state constitution law on governors and state houses. But not one state ever had anything like the 3/5 rule. More evidence that it was created just to pull the South into ratifying the new constitution.

3. The electors to the Electoral College are prohibited from holding elected office. They meet just one day. Many states make it a minor crime not to vote according to how they are pledged. These are not the "wise elders" of the government ready to overrule the unwashed masses. They are nobodies. They are "potted plants". (Last line is exact words of Yale Law Prof Akhil Amar).

Interview with him here:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[TriGirl 278]

Okay -- just another bit of evidence then that the EC long outlived its purpose, and should be eliminated (during the elections, historians interviewed on news programs claimed also the "educated voter" mandate).

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!