Steven, give it up. Kim and her followers don’t understand what “collusion” is, don’t even know how to identify a violation of the Emoluments clause.
I do, and I agree with Kim. I doubt you can say the same.
“Collusion” is very simply two parties working together for a common goal. It is not a crime; in fact, it would be very difficult to MAKE it a crime, because of the Constitutional right of free association.
Now, emoluments? I know what those are, too. An “emolument” in the Constitutional sense means that the POTUS cannot receive anything of value from a foreign government without the consent of Congress.
That’s pretty clear; the problem is that the SCOTUS has never drawn the line on what constitutes a violation and what does not. Obviously, if a politician, as Sect of State, sat at a state dinner with the President of [whatever], and didn’t pay for her meal, she’s received an “emoulument”.
But we don’t impeach our politicians for that. Hence the question as to the actual “line” which the politician cannot cross. (I’ll direct you to no shortage of politicians from both sides who have taken free rides in private jets, for example, and received nothing but a handslap.)
So, now, the big question is “does a hotel stay at Trump International by a foreign politician amount to an “emolument”? Well, some (including you) have inferred that it does.
OK. THEN BRING A FUCKING LAWSUIT AND RUN IT THROUGH THE COURTS, OR STFU.
Nobody’s done this, you see. Know why? Because the Congress does not have clean hands. US law is very clear about selective prosecution. So, here’s how that lawsuit would go:
- Trump would first argue that the arm’s length relationships to his business that his lawyer outlined immediately after his election are sufficient to detach him from any profits gleaned by those businesses. And you know something? HE MAY BE RIGHT. You’re assuming he’s in the wrong, when there would would have to be an extended period of legal wrangling before a court came to that opinion.
- IF he loses that case, appeals would occur, going all the way up to the SCOTUS. Let’s suppose they uphold the lower court.
- THEN, Trump’s next defense is selective prosecution. His lawyers will argue that “emoluments” are accepted all the time, and although it’s illegal, it doesn’t matter because everybody does it; you can’t just decide to prosecute in one case while ignoring it in other cases.
- EVERY FREAKING MEMBER OF CONGRESS, CABINET MEMBERS, PAST PRESIDENTS, PAST CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS, whathaveyou, would have ALL of their records subpoenaed and THEY WOULD ALL BE DEPOSED. Please, stop for a moment and imagine that clusterfuck.
- The Court would be presented with a rather long list of illegal emoluments accepted by past presidents and members of Congress, which would embarrass the hell out of them and in some cases destroy their reputations…….and then the Court would dismiss the case.
- And THAT is why they won’t support an “emoluments” lawsuit; because every damn one of the politicians is doing SOMETHING that breaks the letter of that law.
So, the reason “we” don’t get agitated about the emoluments business is because we’re realists. Not because we’re in love with Trump, or rejecting common sense logic when it comes to the evidence against him. It;s because there IS no evidence against him that matters, in a practical sense.
You could put them in a time travel machine and stick them in Trump Tower wherein private citizens were, allegedly, working with a foreign government in order to change leadership in America. You could let them mentally follow different people around, including Page, who was actively being courted as an agent of the Russians. You could show them video of Kushner selling his influence to the Chinese. Etc. Somehow father Trump begged the Russians on video to dig up dirt about Hillary just after his team was courting the Russians behind the scenes, and they don’t understand that private citizens cannot do that on behalf of America.
Oh, sweet Jesus. That paragraph, to you, sounded SANE?