The Supreme Court today threw out lawsuits claiming that Donald Trump violated the obscure Emoluments Clause, and thus profited from his Presidency. The issue, it concluded, was moot because Trump is no longer in office.
The specious accusation President Trump is violating the Constitution by owning businesses while he is President (Plan C on the list) claimed an ethical breach never anticipated by the Founders and an issue that was barely discussed by the news media during the campaign. Once the President was elected, his haters and saboteurs demanded that he surrender his interests in a vast business empire, something that was both logically and practically impossible. The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8), a true Constitutional dead letter, stipulates that no federal officeholders “shall receive gifts or payments from foreign state or rulers without the consent of Congress.” But payments obviously means pay-offs, and payment for services isn’t a gift. Nor are Trump hotel and other organization receipts payments to the President.
Ironically, President Trump is probably the first President who lost substantial wealth because he was President. The slur that he was in the job for the money is a particularly deep and odoriferous form of hate, contradicting history, financial realities and human nature. Here is a discussion about the Emoluments Clause showing just how vague and useless the provision is, and you can check my earlier post about the unethical use of it by journalists, and one reference nicely skewered by law professor Ann Althouse.
Hate and stupidity still runs deep with the Trump Deranged. One comment to the AOL article (AOL is a nest of Trump hate, for some reason) about the SCOTUS ruling said,
“Their lawsuits are moot just because he’s no longer in office? Does that mean all future presidents can commit crimes without consequences as long as they draw the legal process out long enough to outlast their presidency? Remember – this applies to Republicans and Democrats so don’t think of this as a political statement.”
No, it’s a moronic and ignorant statement. Violating the Emoluments Clause would not be a crime, and the kinds of violations Trump’s Furies are alleging are particularly non-criminal as well as specious.
“Amazing isn’t it that a president can commit whatever crime he wants while in office, if he’s republican, and get away with it. In office, no big deal. Out of office, doesn’t count any more. Seems to me a crime is a crime. Perhaps all of us should go rob a bank, walk out the door and say they can’t arrest me because I am no longer in the bank no longer robbing it and I’m leaving. Wonder how That would play out. ? Trump is guilty of many things and I am confident that in the private sector they do not let him off with a slap on his wrist a smile, and an afterthought of go do it again.”
This, my friends, is what comes of non-existent civic education, historical ignorance, four years of legally sanctioned libel and slander, lazy reading, and the increasing conviction that not having a clue what one is opining about shouldn’t stop that individual from opining.