Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if civil forfeiture will work against Trump once he's out of office. Trump's net worth before becoming President was under US$1 billion. Now it's over 6 billion. A civil claim for the difference based on the Emoluments Acts.

"The Foreign Emoluments Clause bars the president and other federal officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without the consent of Congress. It reflects the framers’ desire to prevent federal officials from succumbing to foreign influence.

The Domestic Emoluments Clause provides for the president to receive a fixed salary and bars him from receiving “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” It was designed to insulate the president against undo pressure from Congress or any individual state."

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/emol...

View on HN

You dont live in a country where Rule of Law matters anymore.

Rule of law? Anymore? No president has ever been punished in any meaningful capacity in our entire history. Washington used loopholes to avoid setting his slaves free[1] for christ sake.

[1]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/george-washington-...

What about Nixon’s impeachment and resignation? What about Trump being a convicted felon 5 ways to Sunday (yes they overturned this since he won again, but I doubt it would have gone this direction if he’d lost.)

How much time did Nixon spend in prison? Or did he opt to be caned instead?

1. There is no downside to impeachment. It has the same impact as a strongly worded letter. 2. Nixon decided to resign and not the alternative for doing something so insane: A restoration of damages. 3. Like I said, they were overturned. I mean even the NYT was trying to figure out the result: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/nyregion/trump-trial-hush...

The reality is the system will bend itself to avoid the problem, because it's been designed to avoid that problem.

No, this is pretty squarely outside the scope, and only specific amounts received from in-scope parties (i.e. governments) would be subject. And there's a standing issue. Basically the emoluments clause doesn't have real teeth for most purposes, even where it applies.

> only specific amounts received from in-scope parties

Like Quatar and the used 747.

It should apply there, though the first Trump admin argued a very narrow interpretation that mostly exempts the president in the first term, at the end of which the case was declared moot (leaving us in suspense about what SCOTUS would have said). Great commentary on emoluments and needed reforms in light of this here: https://www.execfunctions.org/p/trump-20-and-the-foreign-emo...

I hope so. That way we can rebuild the White House the way it was and pay for it by seizing Mar-a-Lago and selling it off.

Trump is a corrupt idiot and a terrible president, but the White House controversy is dumb too. I'm sure the addition will be ugly like everything Trump builds, but that building is not exactly a historic artifact that mustn't be mutated. It's been gutted more than once.

> I'm sure the addition will be ugly like everything Trump builds

Maybe it will serve as a reminder

Bit like suggesting the controversy over bombing boats in the Caribbean is dumb because the U.S. has bombed ships before. The way it's happening is completely unprecedented and absurd.

Comparing extra judicial murders to tearing down part of a building is absurd, please get a grip.

Of course murder is worse. I didn't suggest otherwise. I was responding to the claim that "the White House controversy is dumb" because the building has been modified before. Flagrantly violating the law while blowing a half a billion dollars in transparent bribes on a vanity project while the government is shutdown is beyond outrageous. It's not "dumb" that it's a controversy. It would, in any other administration, be a slam-dunk impeachable offense.

My main issue is how Trump said one thing and did another:

> “It won’t interfere with the current building,” Trump said on July 31. “It’ll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.” - NBC

It seems probable he ignored any number of laws about how he did it, too.

Just imagine if Biden did this.

Agreed. They saw how successful the silly rose garden thing was at diverting attention away from serious issues (Epstein files) and will happily keep pulling that lever until it stops working.

It would work in a situation involving Supreme Court-packing, and that’s about it

I suspect Trump will leave office in a box, not on his feet. Such a civil claim would then have to be against his estate, which probably complicates things.

It would be against whomever is in possession of the stolen wealth, which will not likely be his estate. And yes, this should be a priority of any platform for rebuilding our country. Justice needs to be served. And by the time we're finally rid of these America-last fuckers, people still supporting the Trumps are going to be as rare as people still supporting the Iraq War.

I'd love to believe you--yet folks support the cult of personality and forget the policies. It's not hard to find people that'll say Nixon should've stayed in office, and Reagan might as well have his own religion.

> I wonder if civil forfeiture will work against Trump once he's out of office.

He's only out of office if he dies. There's no way he's leaving voluntarily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com