Coming up next
President, Bernie Sanders And White House discussed on Left, Right & Center
Chuck Schumer, David Brooks And America discussed on PBS NewsHour
United States discussed on Michael Savage
Jonathan, Trump And President discussed on Dan Proft
A new story from The Big Biz Radio Show
Lisa, Trump And US discussed on What's On Your Mind - Encore
Would see is the decision the choice donald trump made to not divest from his sprawling business empire has resulted in a continual violation of the constitutions anti corruption clause in a he is choosing to continually violate the emoluments clause with you mentioned emoluments this is really interesting to me because this still fairly new to most of us vocabulary word emoluments mainly when we talk about it we're talking about like foreign governments spending money like at trump's dc hotel the old post office or something like that i am also aware that there are domestic emoluments which mainly i would think of as like a state government perhaps a conferring some benefit on the trump organization are you saying that like a commerce department employees or department of defense employees just staying at a trump hotel that also would qualify as an emolument and thus under the constitution be illegal i strongly believe that payments by federal agencies to the trump organization that then go into you know what is technically a revoke able trust but which is written so that trump may take the money out of it any time for any reason these definitely are profitable payments that are beyond the salary that trump is entitled to by congress and i should probably clarify the emoluments issue has actually never been decided by court before so i mean it really is a humongous question mark that we could start getting some answers to over the course of this administration yes and i think it's definitely important to mention that the reason that the mullion question has never been decided in court is because no prior president has opened themselves up to violating the emoluments clause i'm still trying to understand the potential motive that federal agency could have here right i could see why like a foreign country would want to curry favor with the president and therefore book you know their entire delegation to come and stay at trump's dc hotel and i can even see why a state governor may be with spend money at a trump property in order to get his attention and maybe hope to get you know money for roads and bridges or something like that down the line but what's in it for the commerce department or the department of defense why should they seek to curry favor with like the executive branch which they're already a part of i think that's approaching the issue of government spending a little bit sideways because while there might not be a quid pro quo where you go oh if i have a bunch of people from the state department spend money trump properties than i'm going to get this specific thing like a new bridge which is something they couldn't ask for you can go well i'm going to have a good relationship with this administration i'm going to find my own policies being more acceptable to the president being promoted by him i'm going to feel like i am more a part of the team and my agency is going to feel like it's more part of the team i think that the question more is is there any way to be involved in administration that is as deeply riddled with conflict of interests and not be a part of it surging bloom from property of the people and by the way property of the people is continuing to seek records for what maybe the most obvious government spending on trump properties us secret service expenses at maralago bedminster and trump tower.