WEBVTT - Trump Emoluments Case Adds Additional Plaintiffs (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.960
<v Speaker 1>It's surprising to students of the law that the average

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>well informed American now knows about a clause in Article one,

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Section four of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause, thanks to

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:15.760
<v Speaker 1>businessman President Donald Trump. The clause prohibits federal officials, certainly

0:00:15.760 --> 0:00:18.680
<v Speaker 1>the president, from accepting anything of value from a foreign

0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>government without the consent of Congress. Talk about whether Trump

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:26.320
<v Speaker 1>is violating the emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:30.040
<v Speaker 1>governments through his business empire turned into a federal lawsuit

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:34.040
<v Speaker 1>by a DC based watchdog group in January. That lawsuit

0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:36.760
<v Speaker 1>has been strengthened by the addition of two new plaintiffs,

0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>an association of restaurants and restaurant workers and a woman

0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:44.200
<v Speaker 1>who books banquet halls for two DC hotels. Our guest

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:46.680
<v Speaker 1>is Richard Painter. He's a professor at the University of

0:00:46.720 --> 0:00:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Minnesota Law School and a former White House ethics lawyer.

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:54.600
<v Speaker 1>Richard does the addition of the new plaintiffs help get

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 1>over the hurdle of standing to file the lawsuit, which

0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:04.559
<v Speaker 1>is the legal requirement that the plaintive actually suffered actual harm. Well,

0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>I believe that we had standing to begin with, as

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:13.400
<v Speaker 1>the citizens for responsibility and ethnics in Washington Crew because

0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:16.679
<v Speaker 1>we as a nonprofit organization, worked for many years to

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:19.880
<v Speaker 1>address conflicts of interests and ethics problems in government and

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>now have to devote substantial resources to addressing this problem

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:29.759
<v Speaker 1>of the monuments or foreign government payoffs uh to the president. UH.

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 1>So I believe we had a very strong standing argument.

0:01:33.200 --> 0:01:37.560
<v Speaker 1>But these other plaintiffs have different standing arguments of economic

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:41.840
<v Speaker 1>harms to their business or to their employment from the

0:01:41.840 --> 0:01:46.680
<v Speaker 1>president's receipt of business from foreign governments at his hotels,

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 1>and so we welcome them to the to the lawsuit. Uh.

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:53.480
<v Speaker 1>And we're all arguing the same uh thing with the

0:01:53.480 --> 0:01:56.480
<v Speaker 1>respect of the underlying violation of the Constitution, which is

0:01:56.520 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>the receipt of foreign government of payments and benefits by

0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:05.520
<v Speaker 1>the President's businesses, which is specifically prohibited under the Constitution

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 1>because the founders did not want our government officials um

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 1>uh doing business and in fact with foreign governments there's

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:16.760
<v Speaker 1>just too much run for conflict of interest there, and

0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:20.359
<v Speaker 1>that's why it's prohibited at the Constitution. Richard, what is it,

0:02:20.760 --> 0:02:23.799
<v Speaker 1>uh that hard to get a direct competitor of the

0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:26.679
<v Speaker 1>Trump hotel aboard as a plaintiffs so this is a

0:02:26.960 --> 0:02:29.680
<v Speaker 1>is an association of restaurants and restaurant workers, and a

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 1>woman who books banquet halls. It would seem like the

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:34.800
<v Speaker 1>clearest case for somebody who could sue would be would

0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:37.880
<v Speaker 1>be somebody who can say, you know, my business, uh,

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>directly competes with the hotel and we're losing customers. Well,

0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:46.640
<v Speaker 1>I think the banquet halls. Uh. Uh A question here

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 1>are competing banquet halls. Uh. The question is whether someone

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:53.239
<v Speaker 1>wants to bring a lot of suit against the President

0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:56.160
<v Speaker 1>of United Sates, particularly a chain of hotels. That's not

0:02:56.639 --> 0:02:59.400
<v Speaker 1>all what a lot of chain hotel chains are necessarily

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:02.799
<v Speaker 1>gonna want to do at this charcture. Uh. So you

0:03:02.919 --> 0:03:05.360
<v Speaker 1>need someone who not only has a very good spanning argument,

0:03:05.800 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 1>but who wants to bring the suit. Richard, Lots of

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:14.400
<v Speaker 1>people in lots of organizations have been trying to get

0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:18.160
<v Speaker 1>Trump to give his tax returns to reveal them to

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.720
<v Speaker 1>the public. Professor Larry Tribe, who is one of the

0:03:21.760 --> 0:03:24.960
<v Speaker 1>lawyers on the case, said he thinks the district court

0:03:25.000 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 1>will have every reason to compel disclosure of Trump's tax

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:34.440
<v Speaker 1>returns in the lawsuit. Explain why if you agree, Well,

0:03:35.000 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 1>yes I do, and Larry tried Bisco Council with me

0:03:37.720 --> 0:03:40.680
<v Speaker 1>on that case. I am representing Crew on with Norman

0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Eisen who was the former chief ethic player for President Obama.

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 1>I was the former chief ethnic player for President of PLUSH.

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 1>So we're all working of four Crew representing Crew in

0:03:50.080 --> 0:03:53.920
<v Speaker 1>this lawsuit. And uh we do believe that the court

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>would ask for discovery, should ask for discovery that would

0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:03.080
<v Speaker 1>disclose the underlying payments made two corporations that are controlled

0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:06.360
<v Speaker 1>by the president. Uh, so we can see which faments

0:04:06.440 --> 0:04:11.320
<v Speaker 1>coming from foreign governments and corporations including banks controlled by

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.960
<v Speaker 1>foreign governments to sovereign wealth fund. The tax returns would

0:04:14.960 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>disclosed at least some of that information. So whether we

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.040
<v Speaker 1>get the tax returns or what we get comparable information

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:25.320
<v Speaker 1>that's even more comprehensive than the tax returns remains to

0:04:25.400 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>be seen. But that's the information we believe this Judge

0:04:28.480 --> 0:04:34.240
<v Speaker 1>um should be disclosed. Uh Judge Abrams and uh we

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>uh we were hoping she does. Thank you. Thank you.

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School,

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 1>former White House ethics lawyer and one of the lawyers

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:50.440
<v Speaker 1>who is bringing this case for Crew, which is a

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.599
<v Speaker 1>public interest organization. The plaintiffs have also beefed up that

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit by adding what it calls gratuitous Chinese trademarks that

0:04:58.600 --> 0:05:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Trump has been granted UH A decade ago, Trump was

0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:05.719
<v Speaker 1>denied trademark protection in China's Trademark office and courts, but

0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:08.760
<v Speaker 1>he was granted trademark protection for a host of goods

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.120
<v Speaker 1>and services after he was sworn in as president.