Speaker 1: The leading case over President Trump's financial interests went before
Speaker 1: a federal judge in New York on Wednesday. The suit
Speaker 1: accuses the president of violating the Constitution's emoluments clause, which
Speaker 1: bars federal officials from accepting things of value from foreign governments.
Speaker 1: Among the allegations, the suit claims foreign officials are occurring
Speaker 1: favor with the president by staying at the Trump International
Speaker 1: Hotel in Washington and by providing his business with valuable
Speaker 1: trademark protection in China. Judge George Daniels said, hill the
Speaker 1: side in the next thirty to sixty days whether the
Speaker 1: suit can go forward. Our guest today is one of
Speaker 1: the people behind the suit. He is Richard Painter, professor
Speaker 1: at the University of Minnesota Law School and vice chairman
Speaker 1: of the watchdog group called Crew. It's the Citizens for
Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and it's one of the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in the case. Richard, Welcome back to the show. Um.
Speaker 1: One of the issues Judge Daniels asked about yesterday was
Speaker 1: basically this, I'll oversimplify significantly. Why is this thing in court?
Speaker 1: The Constitution says that Congress can authorize amoluments, so why
Speaker 1: isn't this something that better off being dealt with in
Speaker 1: the political process rather than the courts. Well, the Constitution
Speaker 1: says that the anybody holding a position of trust with
Speaker 1: the United States government may not receive a present or
Speaker 1: an a monument, in a monument being a profit or
Speaker 1: benefit from a foreign government without the consent of Congress.
Speaker 1: So President Trump has the option of going to Congress
Speaker 1: and asking for consent to receive profits and benefits from
Speaker 1: dealings with foreign governments, whether it's foreign diplomat staying in
Speaker 1: the hotels and running out the ball rooms, or whether
Speaker 1: it's the financial support that the Trump business empire very
Speaker 1: likely guests from banks controlled by foreign governments. We know
Speaker 1: about the Bank of China extending some substantial loans, and
Speaker 1: there may very well be others and sovereign wealth funds.
Speaker 1: So he could go to Congress for permission. But when
Speaker 1: he doesn't do that, he's in violation of the Constitution. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we are asking the judge to require the President
Speaker 1: in a junction to have to comply with the amoluments clause,
Speaker 1: not accept profits or benefits from doings with foreign governments,
Speaker 1: or do what the Constitution says he must do, which
Speaker 1: is to go to Congress and get permission. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that's what we're opening the judge is going to do, Richard.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is arguing that Crew and other plaintiffs
Speaker 1: lacked the legal standing to sue that they you can't
Speaker 1: claim the kind of injury from his alleged violation of
Speaker 1: the emoluments clause that's needed. How do you answer that, Well,
Speaker 1: we believe we do have a standing under the standing
Speaker 1: case law in the Second Circuit, UH, where we have
Speaker 1: brought the case in the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: We are a government reform group that is focused on
Speaker 1: campaign finance or evolving door and other corruption problems in
Speaker 1: government for a well over a decade, and we have
Speaker 1: had the very substantive resources dealing with this new avenue
Speaker 1: and very dangerous avenue corruption that the founders anticipated when
Speaker 1: they drafted the miama's clause. Uh. And that is foreign
Speaker 1: governments seeking to influence, you know, I States government officials
Speaker 1: through unconstitutional payments on profits and benefits. And so we
Speaker 1: believe we do have standing and that's one of the
Speaker 1: issues that Judge Daniels is gonna have to the thought Richard,
Speaker 1: if Judge Daniels. Lets this suit go forward and we
Speaker 1: get to the so called discovery stage. Talk to me
Speaker 1: about how that would work. Um, Your allegations in the
Speaker 1: complaints go into things like, you know, why the president
Speaker 1: made certain decisions. Um, are we gonna have to, you know,
Speaker 1: have these knockdown, drag out fights over whether the president
Speaker 1: has to turn over material that goes to whether he
Speaker 1: did something because a foreign government gave him some sort
Speaker 1: of gift or favor. I. I I think it's up to
Speaker 1: the judge to decide what the discovery is permitted and
Speaker 1: what is relevant to the case. But remember that Minamas
Speaker 1: clauses a flat prohibition on profits uh and benefits from
Speaker 1: dealings with foreign governments. The entire point is to not
Speaker 1: have to get into a question of whether the president
Speaker 1: is being bribed or any other government officials being bribed,
Speaker 1: whether they're doing something in government because of foreign government money.
Speaker 1: It's just a flat prohibition on receiving profits and benefits
Speaker 1: from dealings with foreign governments and presents from foreign governments
Speaker 1: without the consent of Congress. Uh So, someone who does
Speaker 1: receive such benefits and profits without the extent of Congress
Speaker 1: is in violation of the Monuments clause regardless of what
Speaker 1: he or she does as the United States government officials.
Speaker 1: So we have illustrated the specific examples as to why
Speaker 1: we think that Minama's clause is so important to preventing corruption.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that we need to show or
Speaker 1: anybody needs to show that a particular official action was
Speaker 1: actually influenced by the foreign government. The point of the
Speaker 1: founder the draft the constitutions to make sure we're not
Speaker 1: in the situation, but that could even be a possibility. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to leave it there, but I know
Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking more because this is a big case,
Speaker 1: big issue, uh, and certainly there will be more developments
Speaker 1: going on. The federal judge yesterday heard arguments uh whether
Speaker 1: the lawsuit against President Trump on the monument's clause can
Speaker 1: go forward. Thanks to our guest Richard Painter, the vice
Speaker 1: chair of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
Speaker 1: in Washington, that's one of the groups behind the suit.
Speaker 1: Coming up on Bloomberg Law, we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: what if anything, we learned about the Russia investigation from
Speaker 1: the testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill by Attorney General Jeff sessions,