1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,119
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso and Greg Store.

2
00:00:03,640 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's election has turned the previously obscure Emoluments Clause

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:10,680
Speaker 1: into one of the hottest subjects in constitutional law. The

4
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:14,160
Speaker 1: emoluments Clause says that US government officials can't accept things

5
00:00:14,160 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 1: of value from foreign governments and their leaders. It's suddenly

6
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:20,599
Speaker 1: important because of Donald Trump's worldwide business interests and the

7
00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:24,560
Speaker 1: potential that foreign officials may try to ingratiate themselves with

8
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: the new president. Bloomberg Bona's Crack. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly

9
00:00:28,840 --> 00:00:31,400
Speaker 1: Robinson just delved into the topic with a new story

10
00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:34,640
Speaker 1: titled five Things you Didn't Know about the Emoluments Clause.

11
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:38,720
Speaker 1: She's here with me in our point one Washington Studios. Hello, Kimberly.

12
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:43,640
Speaker 1: There were certainly at least a couple of things in

13
00:00:43,640 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 1: your article that I didn't know. Uh, start wherever you want.

14
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 1: What what's one thing we might not know about the

15
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 1: monuments Clause? Well, I think one thing that was interesting

16
00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:55,720
Speaker 1: for me um is that in the two plus the

17
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:58,080
Speaker 1: years that the Supreme Court has been operating, it's never

18
00:00:58,400 --> 00:01:02,240
Speaker 1: once examined this gope or application of the clause. In fact,

19
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: it's only actually cited the language of the clause in

20
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:08,080
Speaker 1: three cases now. Historians say that probably has a lot

21
00:01:08,120 --> 00:01:10,640
Speaker 1: to do with the fact that presidents have tried to

22
00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: really distance themselves from their business interests to avoid even

23
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,720
Speaker 1: the appearance of impropriety. And I recently read an article

24
00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 1: from the Carter administration where he insisted that he distance

25
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:26,640
Speaker 1: himself from his peanut farm. Um. So it hasn't been

26
00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,520
Speaker 1: an issue for the Supreme Court um. But who knows,

27
00:01:29,560 --> 00:01:32,440
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we'll see a new claus there. One of

28
00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:35,959
Speaker 1: your points, Kimberly, is that it might not even apply

29
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:39,319
Speaker 1: to the president, and that's the position that Trump has

30
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:43,040
Speaker 1: been taking. Well, that's right. There's a line of thinking

31
00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:46,039
Speaker 1: that you know, it only applies to officers of the

32
00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 1: United States who were appointed and not those who were elected.

33
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 1: And I think one of the strongest supports for that

34
00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:54,200
Speaker 1: argument is the fact that, you know, our first president,

35
00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:57,360
Speaker 1: George Washington actually did accept a number of valuable gifts

36
00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:01,000
Speaker 1: um from from the Prince of Prince um, and so

37
00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:03,240
Speaker 1: that kind of suggests that it doesn't it doesn't apply

38
00:02:03,320 --> 00:02:05,520
Speaker 1: to the presidency. Kimberly, First of all, I think we

39
00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:07,680
Speaker 1: should see how many former presidents we can name in

40
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 1: this segment. We've gotten a Jimmy Carter and George Washington.

41
00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:14,040
Speaker 1: Let me take you back to eighteen. I believe it is.

42
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:17,360
Speaker 1: There's a constitutional amendment having to do with this that

43
00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 1: that had had a fascinating twist. Tell us about it, right, So,

44
00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:25,160
Speaker 1: the thirteenth Amendment of our Constitution almost said that people

45
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: who violate the the emoluments clause are actually going to

46
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:31,840
Speaker 1: be stripped of their U S citizenship. Now, I mean

47
00:02:32,160 --> 00:02:35,320
Speaker 1: that's a pretty intellectually simulating thing to think of your

48
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:38,240
Speaker 1: president potentially being stripped of their citizenship. But I think

49
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:41,239
Speaker 1: it's especially interesting in light of, um, some ways that

50
00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:44,680
Speaker 1: Donald Trump made on Twitter earlier this week, UM suggesting

51
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:47,400
Speaker 1: that you know, flag burners should be punished and should

52
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:51,120
Speaker 1: be stripped of their citizenship. Seems like the President elect

53
00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:54,320
Speaker 1: may himself have once been at risk of losing his citizenship.

54
00:02:54,560 --> 00:02:58,080
Speaker 1: And that amendment almost almost became part of the constitution. Right,

55
00:02:58,120 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 1: it was just what one state, Sure, it was just

56
00:03:00,680 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: one stage short, but we got a pretty good runner

57
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,760
Speaker 1: up in the in the you know quote new thirteenth Amendment, Um,

58
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:08,799
Speaker 1: you know that abolished labor. So we've had a good

59
00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:13,520
Speaker 1: Consolation Prize. You know, I didn't realize that there was

60
00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:19,280
Speaker 1: a question about Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize because

61
00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:25,639
Speaker 1: of the ten million Swedish Crowner attached to it. That's right.

62
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,720
Speaker 1: That yeah, just you know, a year into his presidency,

63
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: he was awarded this prestigious award, but there was a

64
00:03:32,120 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: question whether or not he could accept it because there

65
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:37,920
Speaker 1: is this equivalency at one point four million dollar prize.

66
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:41,480
Speaker 1: Uh So, even though the Supreme Court itself hasn't been

67
00:03:41,480 --> 00:03:44,360
Speaker 1: in the business of interpreting the emoluments clause, the Department

68
00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: of Justice has and they actually wait in here and said,

69
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,240
Speaker 1: you know, it's not a violation for President Obama to

70
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:54,920
Speaker 1: accept the prize because it wasn't from a foreign government. Um.

71
00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:58,680
Speaker 1: So they really separated the Nobel Prize Committee and the

72
00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:01,560
Speaker 1: foreign government itself. So then, Kimberly, does that mean that

73
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 1: they have they do consider applying it to presidents. Yeah.

74
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:09,400
Speaker 1: I think that's that's really the majority of view. Um.

75
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:12,200
Speaker 1: But you know, once again, the Supreme Court hasn't decided,

76
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:15,640
Speaker 1: so it is still an open issue. Kimberly, let me

77
00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 1: let me veer from your list and ask you one

78
00:04:18,160 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: one issue with the emoluments Clause. Uh, is whether even

79
00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:26,960
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump does violated, whether there's any way that

80
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,320
Speaker 1: could make its way into court, whether anybody would have

81
00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:34,120
Speaker 1: standing to challenge something that he he does. Uh, what's

82
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 1: your take on that? What are you hearing from? People? Well? Right,

83
00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: so the Supreme Court has come up with all different

84
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 1: rules about who can sue you know whom in court,

85
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:44,240
Speaker 1: and you really have to have a unique interest, um

86
00:04:44,400 --> 00:04:46,479
Speaker 1: or a unique injury in order to be able to sue.

87
00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: And it's it's hard to tell how any one citizen

88
00:04:49,160 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 1: could have, you know, a unique enough interest to sue

89
00:04:51,920 --> 00:04:55,360
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for a violation of the emoluments clause. There's

90
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:59,120
Speaker 1: there's been some argument that maybe um, businesses that compete

91
00:04:59,120 --> 00:05:02,159
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump's this is might be able to do it. Um.

92
00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:05,159
Speaker 1: But we again, we really don't know. And it seems

93
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:08,159
Speaker 1: like maybe the remedy might have to be a political one.

94
00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:12,559
Speaker 1: And that plays into your fifth point about Hillary Clinton.

95
00:05:12,600 --> 00:05:14,840
Speaker 1: And but by the way, I never in my life

96
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: expected all this talk about the emoluments clause in the public.

97
00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:25,320
Speaker 1: It's it's just an amazing uh sort of turn. Well,

98
00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:28,200
Speaker 1: that's right. So Hillary Clinton found herself entangled with the

99
00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:31,359
Speaker 1: emoluments clause, um, but not the foreign and not the

100
00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:34,560
Speaker 1: foreign memoluments clause, but the domestic one um. And that

101
00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:38,839
Speaker 1: was when she was a senator and approved a salary

102
00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:41,360
Speaker 1: increase for Secretary of State. And that's happened a few times.

103
00:05:42,640 --> 00:05:45,000
Speaker 1: We want to thank our guest, Kimberly Robinson of BNA,

104
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:48,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court Reporter, Thank you for being here. That

105
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:50,279
Speaker 1: is it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We will

106
00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:53,560
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Reginald Basil

107
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: and our producer uh Mark Sinis Cauchy. You can find

108
00:05:57,640 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 1: more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Boomberg

109
00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:03,000
Speaker 1: BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal

110
00:06:03,040 --> 00:06:06,000
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on

111
00:06:06,040 --> 00:06:10,560
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masster and Corey Johnson. Carol,

112
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:12,400
Speaker 1: what are you talking about today? Well, we're gonna take

113
00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:16,000
Speaker 1: everybody to Indianapolis because Donald Trump he's kicking off his

114
00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:17,680
Speaker 1: thank you tour, but he's also going to talk about

115
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 1: some jobs being saved in the US at the Carrier Corporation.

116
00:06:21,080 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 1: So we'll take everybody there live back to you guys. Okay,

117
00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:26,640
Speaker 1: stay tuned for all that and more here on Bloomberg Radio.

118
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg