Speaker 1: It's surprising to students of the law that the average
Speaker 1: well informed American now knows about a clause in Article one,
Speaker 1: Section four of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause, thanks to
Speaker 1: businessman President Donald Trump. The clause prohibits federal officials, certainly
Speaker 1: the president, from accepting anything of value from a foreign
Speaker 1: government without the consent of Congress. Talk about whether Trump
Speaker 1: is violating the emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign
Speaker 1: governments through his business empire turned into a federal lawsuit
Speaker 1: by a DC based watchdog group in January. That lawsuit
Speaker 1: has been strengthened by the addition of two new plaintiffs,
Speaker 1: an association of restaurants and restaurant workers and a woman
Speaker 1: who books banquet halls for two DC hotels. Our guest
Speaker 1: is Richard Painter. He's a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Minnesota Law School and a former White House ethics lawyer.
Speaker 1: Richard does the addition of the new plaintiffs help get
Speaker 1: over the hurdle of standing to file the lawsuit, which
Speaker 1: is the legal requirement that the plaintive actually suffered actual harm. Well,
Speaker 1: I believe that we had standing to begin with, as
Speaker 1: the citizens for responsibility and ethnics in Washington Crew because
Speaker 1: we as a nonprofit organization, worked for many years to
Speaker 1: address conflicts of interests and ethics problems in government and
Speaker 1: now have to devote substantial resources to addressing this problem
Speaker 1: of the monuments or foreign government payoffs uh to the president. UH.
Speaker 1: So I believe we had a very strong standing argument.
Speaker 1: But these other plaintiffs have different standing arguments of economic
Speaker 1: harms to their business or to their employment from the
Speaker 1: president's receipt of business from foreign governments at his hotels,
Speaker 1: and so we welcome them to the to the lawsuit. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we're all arguing the same uh thing with the
Speaker 1: respect of the underlying violation of the Constitution, which is
Speaker 1: the receipt of foreign government of payments and benefits by
Speaker 1: the President's businesses, which is specifically prohibited under the Constitution
Speaker 1: because the founders did not want our government officials um
Speaker 1: uh doing business and in fact with foreign governments there's
Speaker 1: just too much run for conflict of interest there, and
Speaker 1: that's why it's prohibited at the Constitution. Richard, what is it,
Speaker 1: uh that hard to get a direct competitor of the
Speaker 1: Trump hotel aboard as a plaintiffs so this is a
Speaker 1: is an association of restaurants and restaurant workers, and a
Speaker 1: woman who books banquet halls. It would seem like the
Speaker 1: clearest case for somebody who could sue would be would
Speaker 1: be somebody who can say, you know, my business, uh,
Speaker 1: directly competes with the hotel and we're losing customers. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the banquet halls. Uh. Uh A question here
Speaker 1: are competing banquet halls. Uh. The question is whether someone
Speaker 1: wants to bring a lot of suit against the President
Speaker 1: of United Sates, particularly a chain of hotels. That's not
Speaker 1: all what a lot of chain hotel chains are necessarily
Speaker 1: gonna want to do at this charcture. Uh. So you
Speaker 1: need someone who not only has a very good spanning argument,
Speaker 1: but who wants to bring the suit. Richard, Lots of
Speaker 1: people in lots of organizations have been trying to get
Speaker 1: Trump to give his tax returns to reveal them to
Speaker 1: the public. Professor Larry Tribe, who is one of the
Speaker 1: lawyers on the case, said he thinks the district court
Speaker 1: will have every reason to compel disclosure of Trump's tax
Speaker 1: returns in the lawsuit. Explain why if you agree, Well,
Speaker 1: yes I do, and Larry tried Bisco Council with me
Speaker 1: on that case. I am representing Crew on with Norman
Speaker 1: Eisen who was the former chief ethic player for President Obama.
Speaker 1: I was the former chief ethnic player for President of PLUSH.
Speaker 1: So we're all working of four Crew representing Crew in
Speaker 1: this lawsuit. And uh we do believe that the court
Speaker 1: would ask for discovery, should ask for discovery that would
Speaker 1: disclose the underlying payments made two corporations that are controlled
Speaker 1: by the president. Uh, so we can see which faments
Speaker 1: coming from foreign governments and corporations including banks controlled by
Speaker 1: foreign governments to sovereign wealth fund. The tax returns would
Speaker 1: disclosed at least some of that information. So whether we
Speaker 1: get the tax returns or what we get comparable information
Speaker 1: that's even more comprehensive than the tax returns remains to
Speaker 1: be seen. But that's the information we believe this Judge
Speaker 1: um should be disclosed. Uh Judge Abrams and uh we
Speaker 1: uh we were hoping she does. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School,
Speaker 1: former White House ethics lawyer and one of the lawyers
Speaker 1: who is bringing this case for Crew, which is a
Speaker 1: public interest organization. The plaintiffs have also beefed up that
Speaker 1: lawsuit by adding what it calls gratuitous Chinese trademarks that
Speaker 1: Trump has been granted UH A decade ago, Trump was
Speaker 1: denied trademark protection in China's Trademark office and courts, but
Speaker 1: he was granted trademark protection for a host of goods
Speaker 1: and services after he was sworn in as president.