Speaker 1: Since President Trump took office, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about a clause in the Constitution most Americans had
Speaker 1: never heard of before, the emoluments Clause. Now the State
Speaker 1: of Maryland and Washington d c. Are suing Trump, alleging
Speaker 1: he violated the Foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Here's District of Columbia Attorney General Carl Rassin Racine. Never
Speaker 1: in the history of this country have we had a
Speaker 1: president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements, or president
Speaker 1: who refused to adequately distanced themselves from their holdings. But
Speaker 1: the Justice Department has argued the Foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't
Speaker 1: apply to Trump's fair market commercial transactions. I've been talking
Speaker 1: to Jed Sugarman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Jed
Speaker 1: start by describing the Foreign Emoluments Clause in simple, easy
Speaker 1: to understand terms. Sure, I mean, I can just read.
Speaker 1: Each one is a sentence. So the Foreign Emoluments Clause says,
Speaker 1: no person holding any office of profit or trust under
Speaker 1: them shall with that without the consent of Congress, except
Speaker 1: any present a molument, office, or title of any kind whatever,
Speaker 1: from any King, prince, or foreign state. So there's the
Speaker 1: word amolument and of any kind whatever, um. And then
Speaker 1: the domestic amoluments clause, and that's the even even most
Speaker 1: important one here in these cases. Um, this is about
Speaker 1: the president. The president shall not receive any amolument from
Speaker 1: the United States or from any of them. So that's
Speaker 1: federal or state. So the question always is what's an
Speaker 1: a molument. It's not a word we ever use now
Speaker 1: in the twenty one century, but they used it a
Speaker 1: lot in the eighteenth century. And the work that I've
Speaker 1: been doing with other historians is to understand what that
Speaker 1: word meant. We found that it is a was used
Speaker 1: very broadly for all kinds of business benefits, not just
Speaker 1: for salaries for an office. Um. The Trump defenders want
Speaker 1: to argue, and it's historically inaccurate that this word was
Speaker 1: meant narrowly. Um. It is clear from all of the
Speaker 1: sources at the time of the founding that it was
Speaker 1: generally used for all kinds of benefits and private transactions.
Speaker 1: So well. Presidents are on subject to ethics laws that
Speaker 1: apply to other federal office holders. Most lawyers agree that
Speaker 1: the foreign emoluments clause does apply to presidents now tell us.
Speaker 1: What the case is, what we know he has an
Speaker 1: extensive financial network. What are the state of Maryland and
Speaker 1: Washington d C alleging, Well, it's it's a couple of allegations, um.
Speaker 1: And that's that's the problem is that when Trump is
Speaker 1: using his businesses, it's a direct way for foreign entities
Speaker 1: like Saudi Arabia. We've seen lots of evidence of how
Speaker 1: the Saudis have you have paid about three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to through the d C hotel um. And so
Speaker 1: the that's one problem. And then the domestic emoluments problem
Speaker 1: is all kinds of states are paying millions of dollars
Speaker 1: per UH per year to Trump through his organ zations.
Speaker 1: So the concern for for Maryland and for Washington d
Speaker 1: C is that not only are their citizens being disadvantaged
Speaker 1: by Trump using his office to attract business. That creates
Speaker 1: a competitive disadvantage on fair disadvantage for their citizens, but
Speaker 1: it also weakens the states. If you have we know
Speaker 1: that California's pension UH in New York's pension, Texas is
Speaker 1: using its pension to send millions of dollars to Trump.
Speaker 1: That disadvantages the states with regard to each other, and
Speaker 1: you have foreign countries who are getting an advantage over
Speaker 1: not only citizens but also states in being able to
Speaker 1: exercise control and influence. So the other key point here
Speaker 1: is that Supreme Court precedent establishes that the states have
Speaker 1: a special role, that they've called it a special solicitude
Speaker 1: um in our federal system, and that they need to
Speaker 1: have the power to get into court to be able
Speaker 1: to protect themselves. And so under that those precedents, one
Speaker 1: is called Massachusetts first as e p A that establishes
Speaker 1: that these states can get in a court and defend themselves.
Speaker 1: So jed this is the second lawsuit over basically the
Speaker 1: same issue. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington already filed.
Speaker 1: So what has the Justice Department's response been. So they
Speaker 1: just filed their response UM their brief to um support
Speaker 1: their motion to dismiss on Friday UM. And it's the
Speaker 1: the argument they make is very weak. UM. The problem
Speaker 1: is uh that there they the Department of Justice is
Speaker 1: arguing that Trump can accept any payment at all the
Speaker 1: because the corporate that the Trump corporations are separate from
Speaker 1: Trump the person, and so the corporations any money the
Speaker 1: corporations take in is llegally separate from the president UM,
Speaker 1: and that that's a misinterpretation of established law. UM. The
Speaker 1: monuments are about a benefit. And the way that President
Speaker 1: Trump has set up his his organization is that he
Speaker 1: this trust is not a blind trust. He can take
Speaker 1: profits anytime he wants. He can disband the trust or
Speaker 1: of Okay at any time, UM, and he's the sole beneficiary.
Speaker 1: So it's clear that any payment that comes from California,
Speaker 1: or that comes from Saudi Arabia or from other countries
Speaker 1: is a benefit directly to President Trump. And that's what
Speaker 1: the emolument's clause was meant to address. In about twenty seconds.
Speaker 1: What's the solution if if they win this case, what happens? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that I think the easiest solution for Trump
Speaker 1: is actually quite easy. If he just UM put the
Speaker 1: company into a blind trust or completely handed it over
Speaker 1: and separated from himself, that would be simple. It's it's
Speaker 1: actually quite amazing that he is enduring this unforced error
Speaker 1: UM in this controversy. It just shows I think how
Speaker 1: committed he is uh to being able to use these
Speaker 1: corporations for his personal benefit. We will see if that
Speaker 1: ever happens. Thank you, Jed Sugarman, Professor at Fordham Law School,