It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


But I don't think Trump violated the emoluments clause, here's why

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:49 PM
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.

Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. Are you telling me no foreign officer bought his book while he was president? The emoluments clause does not forbid foreign officers to send money to the president in an unofficial capacity, only if they are doing so representing the foreign government to the president.

The emoluments clause forbids the president accepting emoluments from foreign governments. How can a president accept something if he does not know he got that thing? Obama didn't know when a foreign officer bought his book when he was president. Trump doesn't know when a foreign officer stays at his hotel when he is president. When the president doesn't know he got it, he cannot accept it, and cannot be influenced with a favor. The keyword in the emoluments clause is accepting, not getting, emoluments from foreign governments. You cannot accept something if you don't know you got something. Obama didn't break the emoluments clause selling his book to foreign officers when he was president. Trump isn't breaking the emoluments clause selling his hotel rooms to foreign officers when he is president. Like I said, they didn't accept any emoluments from foreign governments because they don't know they got emoluments from foreign governments, which I'm pretty sure they got.

As an example, let's say I stuffed 10 bucks into your pocket without you knowing about it. Did you accept 10 bucks from me? No. You got 10 bucks from me. But since you don't know you got it, you didn't accept it.
edit on 14-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:52 PM
What Obama did will have no relevance to what is going on with Trump in court.

This will go nowhere it's political grandstanding the biggest babies on the planet.. Democrats.

The law itself is very vague and as far as I can tell the language of the law itself isn't very clear so the Democrip's will have to build a VERY solid case with physical evidence to support their cause.

It will go nowhere and the Democrip's will continue to look more and more insane and lose more and more votes.

Maybe we can get a strong libertarian candidate for once, another Ron Paul would be nice.

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:58 PM
Emolument is what 18th century people would have called bribes. To get a bribe, you must know you got it in order to accept it. If you got something without knowing about it, then it does not qualify as a bribe.

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: allsee4eye

Got it, however there is no clear definitions.

In court having clearly defined language within the statutes is key for the prosecution to argue a case, otherwise they are going to have a hard time.

posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: allsee4eye

A beautiful vase, china cab for the 1st family from some other person or country? A lovely rose bush for the yard? Accepted...and in the back of your always remember who sent it.

"Those nice (insert briber here) gave us this pretty (insert object here) last year.."...and youve been "influenced" in your "opinion" about those senders.

Not $$, but "bribed or influenced" indirectly..."Gifts" are given to Governmental Heads and hosts everyday-all day everywhere. Technically not "bribes'...but a form of "influencing" none the less.

edit on 15-6-2017 by mysterioustranger because: err

new topics

top topics

log in